Confirmed with Link: [VAN/FLA] Canucks acquire Erik Gudbranson, 2016 5th ~ PT 3
- Thread starter WTG
- Start date
- Status
How about this...24 year old D-men with 300+ games of NHL experience don't tend to improve that much more.
Can't say it won't happen but odds are he's much closer to his peak then he is away from it.
Again, the conversation I was asked to have was to "define" the type of team Benning was building, vis a vis the assertion that he was building a "fast, skilled team like the Pittsburgh Penguins".
That requires some "parsing" of skill sets into relatively simplistic buckets. Of course players are a mix of all things and those things have levels ranging from low to high but that doesn't facilitate a hockey message board discussion terribly well.
Again, Linden Vey is NOT a skilled NHL player. Is he a skilled WHL player? Sure. A skilled AHL player? Sure. But 2 years and once through waivers has clearly demonstrated average-to-below-average skills. Granted his skills may still be better than his "intangibles" but you can't say an ugly person is pretty just cause their personality is even worse.
So I cannot accept that acquiring a below-average-skill player equates to "acquiring skill". I mean Emerson Etem scored 61 goals in junior more recently than Vey won his scoring title, would you honestly propose that Benning targeted "skill" in Etem? These are players that are neither "skilled" (at the NHL level) nor gritty, character, or defensive. They are just warm bodies that fill the requirement of 5 skaters on the ice while the Sedins and Horvat get their rest. Counting them towards the pursuit of a "fast, skilled team" is a massive stretch to say the least.
BloatedGuppy
Registered User
Unless I'm mistaken, that tends to be for production.
Defensive acumen is a bit harder to track, the tools we have for tracking it are far less precise and haven't been in use for very long, and the "eye/hunch" test would seem to suggest that defensive defensemen are more effective later in their careers, while they still have mobility/physicality but have accumulated some veteran wile. Think Foote, Regehr, Mitchell, etc. Regehr in particular seemed to be a popular analogue for Gudbranson for Florida fans.
Most likely Gudbranson hits his effective "peak" as a contributing player between 26-32, presuming he doesn't play such a high impact/physical game that breakdown occurs earlier. After that age will probably cost him a step and he'll become a Hall Gil until he plays his way out of the league.
Offensively he'll likely always be a bit of a drag on whatever pairing he's on, much like Mitchell was. There's a pie-in-the-sky chance he gets utilized differently in Vancouver and gets enough points via osmosis to slip into the 20's, but this isn't ever a guy you're likely to see spearheading a rush.
Burns would be the textbook definition of why this is an incorrect statement. Heck, even Drew Doughty, while a good defencemen since he came into the league, has been nominated for the Norris two years in a row, which both came after he turned 24.
But either way, I have yet to see any statistical analysis by you or anyone who has ever claimed this to be true.
I like how you created a new category for players that undermine your argument
Vey, Etem, Granlund, Vrbata, Baertschi, Weber are skill players... that's 6 players.
Sutter, Sbisa, Gud, Prust, Dorsett, Pedan are gritty or defensive... that's also 6 players.
Benning has targetted both pretty much equally, even with his draft picks. He picked skill guys like Boeser, McCann, Gaudette, Zhukenov, and Forsling. Your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.
If you want to base your argument on saying Vey, Etem, and Granlund are "skill players" then go ahead. Considering they all have below-average levels of skill I find that an odd argument to make but maybe that's just me.
The draft picks don't indicate much other than all teams draft skill out of junior. If Benning didn't draft McCann at 24 but instead took Stewart Mackenzie then we'd have a much bigger problem on our hands.
But since you're keen to include drafted players, let's at least be accurate on where that "skill" has gone:
McCann traded for a 13 point D man
Shinkaruk traded for a bottom 6 player.
Forsling traded for Clendenning traded for a defensive centre.
Virtanen (a player I like btw) drafted over two players who are clearly more "skilled" but not as physically intimidating.
The direction of Benning's moves is pretty evident for anyone who is willing to be honest about it. Classifying guys like Vey, Granlund, and Etem as "skill" players at the NHL level is beyond ridiculous.
I don't disagree. I was just being somewhat a jerk by pointing out what I think was the obvious intent behind the short statement of 24 year old D-men not improving.
I have no issue that Gudbranson may indeed prove to be an effective defensive D-man for many years. Still don't like the cost paid to acquire that nor do I think it is what your prime assets should be spent on when you are in the situation the canucks are in. A contending team or solid playoff team needing that component go ahead and pay with youth and skill. A team in need of youth and skill in every position shouldn't be moving that youth and skill for limited skill-set or one dimensional players just because those players are older and have "developed".
Quick someone go tell Hutton he only has 10 more months to improve
Simply corrected a mistake.
No that's not a textbook example of why it is an incorrect statement. Burns is an exception to the general trend that players with that much experience don't TEND to improve much more.
I don't go buy trophy wins/nominations. They are often biased towards experienced players in the first case. In the second case Doughty is only 26 and had norris consideration in his Sophmore season where he finished third. He's been at or near this level of play damn near since he entered the league. He fluctuates around "awesome". Sometimes a little less and sometime a little more but he hasn't all of a sudden been Norris nomination worthy. He always was and has been nominated.
One also has to understand that what trends are realize that exceptions exist. A player can even follow a trend and have a fantastic season out of the blue and go back to a previous level the very next season. Hence the phrase "tend to..." Vezina winners tend to be good goaltenders. Just because Jim Carey was complete crap doesn't make that statement incorrect.
Last edited:
biturbo19
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2010
- 26,223
- 11,302
I just cannot grasp this concept you're putting forward where Vey failed because he wasn't skilled enough. I just don't see how that's ever been Vey's problem here. The issue is that he's too slow and easily pushed out of the play physically to make good on any of his skilled plays. He's not "toolsy" enough to translate his skill at the NHL level. It's a lack of tools that holds him back more than any other factor.
Even this idea that the Penguins are a "fast, skilled team" is a crock. They have a lot of slow, unskilled players. They happen to have superstar players at key positions which allow them to play "fast" and the "skill" can show through...but it's not a complete team of "fast and skilled" players by any stretch. You do not build an NHL team with all one "type" of player like you seem to be asserting here.
A "fast and skilled" team isn't built of 23 players who are individually all both "fast" and "skilled" at the same time. Nor can you ignore any physical presence or leadership or other "intangibles" and attributes of that Cup Winning team. The Oilers are year after year a team staffed with a ton of fast and skilled players, and they don't equate to anything. They're horrendous. There are just so many facets to building a winning team that these simplistic category buckets completely miss out on. They're not the Penguins. You have to fit a team together with multiple attributes and facets...and no, not every player is going to have every desirable attribute.
Guys like Etem and Vey are not what defines this rebuild. They're just darts thrown at the board. They're players with something to potentially offer. Vey has skill that didn't really translate. Etem had comparable skill, a familiarity with the coach and a lot more will to make something of his opportunity than the guy he was acquired for...Jensen. These aren't earth-shattering trades. And they don't have to be. They're just shots at something on a team entering a rebuild.
Gudbranson...he's a bigger piece for sure. He's a piece that you expect to be that 2nd pairing RHD for a lot of years to come, at the price paid here. Hopefully that's the case, and he has a lot of things going for him that indicate he should be plenty capable of actually fulfilling that role.
But this whole business of trying to funnel all of Benning's acquisitions into one bucket...it's just silly. And absurdly simplistic.
I still dont' find that ridiculous.
Many players are skilled but dont' fully translate their games.
Another example of this is Kyle Wellwood. IMO one of the most "skilled' players in the game when he was playing. But he was nothing more than a 3rd liner on the canucks, and was claimed off "waivers".
So skill and nhl success sometimes aren't parallel.
Etem is clearly a player drafted for his skill rather than defensive play, physicality.
And its exactly why he's move on to many teams.
Teams thought he could potentially breakout into a scorer, but once they find out he likely won't, they would move him because they don't want him in the bot 6 (because he lacks physicality, and defensive prowess).
So you get a situation where these skill guys who can't crack the top 6 get moved around and if they dont' breakout, slowly fade and leave the league altogether.
Diamonddog01
Diamond in the rough
Burns, Ehrhoff, Keith, Seabrook, Chara. Off the top of my head. It's not an exception, it seems a lot of the good defenders take 300+ games post 24 years old to become their best. Don't try and convince me other wise without statistical analysis, I am not going to take your word as gospel.
You've made that abundantly clear Bit, in which case perhaps you'd be less vexed by ignoring it and allowing the two people who were having it carry on. I mean I jump into other people's debates as much as anyone, but usually because I feel I have something to add or clarify. If I think it is a pointless and incomprehensible discussion I usually don't get involved.
Ah but you get to avoid the use of stats. Gotcha.
BTW
Keith...10th and 6th in Norris voting before he won at age 26.
Seabrook...never had real serious Norris consideration but was 13th in voting at age 24. And a Calder winner
Chara...7th in voting at 25, 2nd at 26.
So far Burns is an exception. Chara is a minor exception maybe. Keith and Seabrook are not. Doughty is not. Those are all guys that play and have played at a high level since their early 20s.
Sure, and when you watched Wellwood you could SEE the skill level. I don't see that when I watch Vey. Again, considering he is in the NHL and so we are talking about skill in that context (and not relative to our beer league buddies), Vey is:
- A very average puckhandler/carrier
- Has a below-average-shot and ability to get off his shot
- An average level skater, both in terms of speed, but also agility
- A slightly above average passer in terms of accuracy
- An average level of creativity and making plays happen
So while you (or others at least) continually refer to Vey as "skilled but lacking tools", I am perplexed as to exactly WHERE that skill is? Like what exactly do you see as his high level skill? Because 100% of NHL players have some degree of skill. Brandon Prust can stickhandle, pass, and shoot. He simply does it at such a low level that one would never refer to him as "skilled". Yet it seems you (and others) want to annoint Vey as "skilled" simply because its the only thing you can think of to describe him. In other words, hes not big, strong, physical, gritty, or a leader so by default he must be skilled. Except he's not skilled at an NHL level. And its not because of his tools. It is his lack of high end skill. Go watch vids of Wellwood and you will see frequent instances of high end puckhandling and protection along with flashes of high end vision and creativity. Yes he was a below-average skater, was soft, and didn't compete hard but you could still SEE the skill. I don't see that with Vey. So to continually call him a skill player when he clearly lacks any high end skills baffles me to no end.
I feel like some people simply don't watch other teams play and then assume than nobody else does, either.
We heard this routine with Sbisa. Heard it with Sutter. And now hearing it with Gudbranson. 'Yeah this player has been in the NHL for 5-7 years and is a completely known quantity, but maybe he'll suddenly be a completely different player with us!'
Yeah, EVERYBODY takes 'skill players' in the top two rounds, pretty much. It's exceedingly rare in 2016 that a team is stupid enough to take a no-talent behemoth with a top pick. Happened a ton in 1995, doesn't anymore.
TruGr1t
Proper Villain
- Jun 26, 2003
- 23,620
- 7,755
With Barrie off the market the quantity of top-4 defenseman has declined yet again. Wouldn't be surprised if Trouba ends up staying in Winnipeg. That leaves what ... Vatanen, maybe Shattenkirk. Guys like Demers and Hamhuis gonna get seriously paid this off season.
How can you not see that Vey was brought in for 'skill' in 2014? Whether he was/is able to accomplish that is a whole different debate, but Benning brought him in solely for skill. He even expected him to fill the 2nd line center role 1-2 years in. His AHL pedigree was reason to believe he could make the jump:
2011-12: 74gp, 43pts, 0.58ppg
2012-13: 74gp, 67pts, 0.91ppg
2013-14: 43gp, 48pts, 1.12ppg
The issue with Vey was failing to transition to the NHL (even though that's still early), but to say he showed skill at such a low level is false. Even at the NHL, he had glimpses of skill and hockey IQ. The fact you used Brandon Prust as an example is ridiculous.
You guys are both essentially correct, from different angles.
Vey is a 'skill-style' player. He does have pretty good vision, fairly high offensive IQ, and is useful pretty much only on the PP. He has no grit and intangibles whatsoever, and the only redeemable thing about him is his 'skill'.
That said, his 'skill' is incredibly pedestrian and not NHL caliber. So calling him 'skilled' relative to NHL players is a complete misnomer.
He's basically an 'AHL skill center' and a complete garbage player at the NHL level.
I agree with a lot of this post, and I think you hit on something that I find to be one of his major deficiencies. It looks to me like he thinks a balanced team is a formula, you need a skill line, and a two way line, and a grinder line, and every defense pair needs a skill guy and a mean guy.
He's willing to take losses on trades to get pieces that fit certain roles for him (hence Sutter for Bonino).
And while there is all sorts of merit in a balanced team, it doesn't do much good if most of the players are in the bottom 1/3 of the league of the roles you've set out for them.
Even Brandon Prust shows glimpses of skill.
The issue is how often you see these glimpses and how effective they are in terms of going things to help your team win hockey. Again, let's be realistic about how much skill an "average" NHLer has. Then ask yourself if Vey displays more or less skill than this average NHLer. If he doesn't, then I don't see how you can call him a "skill player". It's like calling Nick Bonino "speedy" just because he can skate faster than you or your beer league buddies. By NHL standards, Bonino is not speedy. And using that same level of standard, Vey is not "skilled".
Edit: I suck at embedding YT's. Here's the link for anyone who cares: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGaLQPVdROE Basically shows nice vision and hands on his pass to McCann last year.
Vey still shows a lot more glimpses of skill than Prust ever had in his whole career. So it's not fair to put them in the same category. In 2014, most people who didn't know about Vey saw him as a potential 2nd line (or at worst, 3rd line) center. When he was utitlized on the PP, he did his job and then trailed off.
PS: For embedding videos, click the "share" button on Youtube and you get a new, shorter link. I see you pasted the whole URL, which doesn't work with the embedded feature.
- Status
